Continuum limit: is it really justifiable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drkatzin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuum Limit
AI Thread Summary
In statistical physics, the continuum limit involves taking the number of particles N to infinity, allowing the conversion of sums to integrals, which is often justified by empirical agreement with observations. The distinction between countable and uncountable infinity raises questions about the mathematical rigor of this approach, particularly regarding the transition from discrete to continuous systems. The thermodynamic limit, while related, specifically addresses the behavior of a system as particle numbers increase, even if their positions remain discrete. The Euler-Maclaurin formula provides a mathematical basis for approximating sums with integrals, supporting the validity of this approximation in statistical mechanics. Ultimately, while the continuum limit may lack strict mathematical justification, it remains a well-defined and useful concept in the field.
drkatzin
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Usually in statistical physics, when your system has a large number N of particles, you take the continuum limit -- you let N\rightarrow\infty, and convert sums to integrals (with an appropriate normalization factor).

My understanding is that as a finite number tends to infinity, the infinity is still countable. What confuses me is the jump to uncountable infinity that allows us to use the continuum. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok, or is it just a physicist's way of saying countable infinity \approx uncountable infinity? (To me, this seems absolutely unjustifiable, even in an approximation. The concepts are fundamentally different.)

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We do it because it works - i.e. it agrees with observation. It may not be mathematically rigorous, but it is well-defined.
 
drkatzin said:
. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok
As the number of particles goes to infinity the error from making the continuum approximation goes to 0.
 
drkatzin said:
Usually in statistical physics, when your system has a large number N of particles, you take the continuum limit -- you let N\rightarrow\infty, and convert sums to integrals (with an appropriate normalization factor).

My understanding is that as a finite number tends to infinity, the infinity is still countable. What confuses me is the jump to uncountable infinity that allows us to use the continuum. Is there a rigorous math way to explain why this is ok, or is it just a physicist's way of saying countable infinity \approx uncountable infinity? (To me, this seems absolutely unjustifiable, even in an approximation. The concepts are fundamentally different.)

Thanks!

You will hopefully find the answer in this thread sufficient: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=407934 (the relevant post is a remark that a continuous function is completely determined by its values on the rationals, which are countable).

Some further comments, though:

The limit you are describing, N \rightarrow \infty, is called the thermodynamic limit, and although it is similar to the continuum limit, they are not quite the same. The thermodynamic limit addresses the case of what happens when you take the number of "particles" of a system to infinity, but those particles may still have a discrete set of locations.

In this context, the approximation of sums with integrals can perhaps be viewed as a consequence of the Euler-Maclaurin formula, which enables one to approximate sums as integrals, at very least deriving an asymptotic expression, which is generally what one does in statistical mechanics. The change of variables from sum indices to a more physical variable will introduce the density of states.

As for the continuum limit, this is the limit in which your system actually becomes a continuum e.g., taking the lattice spacing to zero. Often this is done in conjunction with the thermodynamic limit while holding the density of the system fixed. Because the number of particles is generally still taken to infinity, the integral theorem I mentioned above still applies.
 
Last edited:
Mute said:
You will hopefully find the answer in this thread sufficient: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=407934 (the relevant post is a remark that a continuous function is completely determined by its values on the rationals, which are countable).

Some further comments, though:

The limit you are describing, N \rightarrow \infty, is called the thermodynamic limit, and although it is similar to the continuum limit, they are not quite the same. The thermodynamic limit addresses the case of what happens when you take the number of "particles" of a system to infinity, but those particles may still have a discrete set of locations.

In this context, the approximation of sums with integrals can perhaps be viewed as a consequence of the Euler-Maclaurin formula, which enables one to approximate sums as integrals, at very least deriving an asymptotic expression, which is generally what one does in statistical mechanics. The change of variables from sum indices to a more physical variable will introduce the density of states.

As for the continuum limit, this is the limit in which your system actually becomes a continuum e.g., taking the lattice spacing to zero. Often this is done in conjunction with the thermodynamic limit while holding the density of the system fixed. Because the number of particles is generally still taken to infinity, the integral theorem I mentioned above still applies.

Thank you Mute! This makes a lot of sense.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top